Early High Court Decision 2013J 4602 ( October 20, 2014)

If the object of capital gains tax reduction or exemption is to be farmland as of the date of transfer.

The burden of proving that farmland is farmland at the time of transfer is farmland at the time of transfer is the plaintiff who is the person liable for payment, but the land at the time of transfer is not used as farmland at the

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act for Self-Cultivating Farmland

2014Gudan905 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Hyo

○ Head of tax office

April 28, 2015

May 26, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000,000,000 on the Plaintiff on July 25, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 27, 2006, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “○○○○”) on July 27, 2006 ○○○○.

0,000,000,000 for the price of 0,000 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) prior to 0,000 square meters of 0,000

On December 28, 2011, the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land was completed in the front of ○○○○ on December 28, 2011.

B. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary return on the tax base of transfer income following the transfer of the instant land, and filed an application for reduction or exemption of transfer income tax on the ground that the Plaintiff possessed the instant land for not less than eight years, and arable it

C. However, on July 25, 2013, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00,000,000 as transfer income tax for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on July 25, 201, on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the instant land does not fall under farmland as of the date of transfer and that the Plaintiff had cultivated the instant land directly (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

D. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 5 through 7, Eul 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since from around 1968, the Plaintiff installed plastic houses, etc. on the instant land and cultivated Bori or celebate plants, the instant land constitutes “farmland subject to reduction of capital gains tax” but the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s application for reduction of capital gains tax on the basis of incorrect aerial dust, etc., and made the instant disposition against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, a tax law interpretation shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring special circumstances, which prevents the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, the strict interpretation of the provision that can be seen as a clearly preferential provision at the time of the establishment of the requirements for reduction or exemption accords with the principle of fair taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du20116, Dec. 13, 201). Furthermore, the burden of proving that the “farmland as of the date of transfer” is “farmland as of the date of transfer,” the taxpayer, who is a taxpayer of tax payment,

2) First, as to whether the land of this case falls under "farmland subject to reduction or exemption from capital gains tax under the above Acts and subordinate statutes as of the date of transfer, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the entries in Gap 8 through 16 (including household numbers), and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Rather, in full view of the entries in Eul 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 (including household numbers) and the whole purport of pleadings, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case on July 22, 1987. Since around that time, the number of buildings installed on some of the land of this case and the passage of time increases, and around January 200, most of the land of this case were installed on the land of this case, and ○○○○○○○, which operated a printing stuff manufacturing business, was used as the location of the land of this case and completed the registration of business for the land of this case from 200 years to 201, "the land land land price of this case was not used for industrial use."

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the land of this case does not fall under farmland as of the date of transfer is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any need to examine further.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition.